Newman v. Rhebem Theatres Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Rhebem Theatres Corp.

224 A.D. 845

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D. 845 (Newman v. Rhebem Theatres Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newman v. Rhebem Theatres Corp., 224 A.D. 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. Plaintiff was not entitled to a foreclosure judgment as the lien was clearly one against the contractor both under the complaint and from the language of the hen. It was not filed as against the owner upon the theory that the latter was hable for materials furnished after the alleged new promise. There must be a new trial in order to determine what sum, if any, the plaintiff may be entitled to, based upon such materials as were furnished after the alleged new promise, and which may not include materials theretofore furnished unless the promise was in writing. (Voska, Foelsch & Sidlo, Inc., v. Ruland, 172 App. Div. 616.) The finding of fact of the making of the new promise is, in our opinion, against the weight of the evidence. Kapper, Hagarty, Seeger and Seudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. Plaintiff was not entitled to a foreclosure judgment as the lien was clearly one against the contractor both under the complaint and from the language of the hen. It was not filed as against the owner upon the theory that the latter was hable for materials furnished after the alleged new promise. There must be a new trial in order to determine what sum, if any, the plaintiff may be entitled to, based upon such materials as were furnished after the alleged new promise, and which may not include materials theretofore furnished unless the promise was in writing. (Voska, Foelsch & Sidlo, Inc., v. Ruland, 172 App. Div. 616.) The finding of fact of the making of the new promise is, in our opinion, against the weight of the evidence. Kapper, Hagarty, Seeger and Seudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D. 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-rhebem-theatres-corp-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack